Extract
Knits and Tweeds, Inc., 1211 (1973)
KNITS AND TWEEDS
Knits and Tweeds, Inc. and Local 107, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case 29-CA-2552June 6, 1973 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNINGAND JENKINSOn July 31, 1972, Administrative Law Judge ' Maurice S. Bush issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings 2 and conclusions 3 of the Administrative Law Judge.4 ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Knits and Tweeds, Inc., Deer Park, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.i The title of 'Trial Examiner' was changed to 'Administrative Law Judge' effective August 19, 1972.2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.We also find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent's production manager did not violate Sec. 8(a)(l) of the Act by stating to employee Neives, during the Union's organizational drive, '... that if the Union would try to get into the place and pull all the people out, then all the people would be out of work, and there was still going on with the knitting, they would send the work out to some other jobbers, and they would still, you know, have the production out.' In our view , this statement is not coercive, but merely iterates Respondent's right to subcontract work in the event its employees engaged in a strike and, therefore, refused to perform their jobs.We further find that although the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly found that there was no miscount in the Viva bundles, his finding that Respondent unlawfully discharged Maffia is supported by the record. The record shows that Respondent engaged in a course of conduct designed to prevent the Union from organizing its plant, and that its unlawful attempts to accomplish this objective were directed to employees whose pro or antiunion sentiments were unknown to it, ostensibly because such knowledge was immaterial to its objective. Maffia, however, presented a different problem. Respondent was acutely aware of her outspoken prounion sympathies 1211 which she expressed to Respondent in terms indicating that it would be restricted in certain of its activities and would be accountable to a union for such activities '... if this was a union shop...... Thus, despite the Viva bundle miscount, we find that the evidence pertaining to the Viva miscount order is not sufficient to overcome the evidence of record and the inferences flowing therefrom that Respondent discharged Maffia during the Union's organizational drive because her known union advocacy posed a potential threat to its objective to defea...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
